Delete Link In Bio Link

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing cascade scope — the image, animation and protection go with the link — plus a confirmation requirement. It does not discuss the dry_run preview path or what the returned result looks like, which keeps it just short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (irreversible deletion with cascading assets) is front-loaded before the alternative and the confirmation rule.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is destroyed, the non-destructive alternative, and the human-confirmation rule. The only real omission is guidance on when to prefer the available dry_run preview over an immediate delete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so id, domain and dry_run are all documented in the schema with examples and intent. The description adds no parameter-level detail (it never mentions dry_run or where the id comes from), so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete a link from a Link in Bio page') plus the exact scope of destruction ('with its image, animation and protection'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling edit_link_in_bio_link. An agent can tell this apart from edit/edit-in-place tools without reading either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names the alternative tool and the exact flag that selects it ('To hide it instead, use edit_link_in_bio_link with `enabled: false`'), and adds a procedural rule ('Confirm with the user first'). This is explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and how-to-do-the-other-thing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.